In case of lease, the fact that the ownership transfer is not known and fraudulent

Although the ownership of a house as security of a claim has been transferred to a creditor, it is a so-called crime of fraud that the defendant conspireds with the debtor to conceal this fact and leases the house to a person who owns the debtor and receives money under the name of the deposit money

Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Article 372 of the Civil Act (Transfer for Security)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No6852 delivered on March 23, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's appeal

In light of the record, the decision of the court below that there is no proof of a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, and that there is no error in the rules of evidence or in the misconception of facts, since it is justified in the decision of the court below that there is no evidence of a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, since it was intended to execute a surrender for the house of this case but the execution of a surrender for the house was impossible.

2. As to the defendant's appeal

In light of the record, we affirm the criminal facts in the statement of the first instance judgment, and we cannot say that there was a son’s fault in the process of evidence collection or hearing, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to fraud.

As long as it is obvious in the record that the defendant recognizes the voluntariness of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the admissibility of evidence, and the protocol of interrogation of the defendant by the police is not adopted as urban evidence.

The so-called crime of fraud is established in collusion with the non-indicted 1 in order to conceal this fact while transferring the ownership of the house to the creditor as security of the claim. In this regard, the court below's decision that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance is justified and there is no different opinion.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)